Segal v. State Bar of Nevada

Filing 26

ORDER Granting 24 Motion to Stay Discovery pending decisions on 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 5 MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/14/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
ADAM P. SEGAL, ESQ.,
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
13

ALAN LEFEBVRE, et at.,

14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01511-JCM-NJK
ORDER GRANTING STAY
OF DISCOVERY

15
Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery pending decisions on
16
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Docket 24; see also
17
Docket No. 5 (“motion to dismiss”) and Docket No. 17 (“motion for summary judgment”). The
18
parties agree that both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment are potentially
19
dispositive and can be decided without additional discovery. Docket No. 24, at 2-3. The parties
20
further agree that it is more just to delay discovery in this action until preliminary questions of law
21
are decided. Id.
22
The pendency of a motion to dismiss alone does not in itself stay discovery deadlines. See,
23
e.g., Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013)
24
(“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery
25
when a potentially dispositive motion is pending”). “It is well-established that a party seeking a stay
26
of discovery carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be stayed.”
27
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). To determine whether this
28
requirement is met, the Court employs a two-part test: (1) the pending motion must be potentially

1

dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought, and (2)

2

the court must determine whether the pending potentially dispositive motion can be decided without

3

additional discovery. Ministerio, 288 F.R.D. at 506; citing e.g., Mlejnecky, 2011 WL 489743, at *6.

4

Therefore, as a threshold matter, the movant must establish that the “pending motion must be

5

potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is

6

sought.” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D at 601. Once a party has met the threshold requirement, the court

7

must consider whether the pending potentially dispositive motion can be decided without additional

8

discovery. Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500 (D. Nev. 2013);

9

citing Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging America, Inc., 2011 WL 489743, at *6 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 7,

10

2011). To make this determination, “the court deciding the motion to stay must take a ‘preliminary

11

peek’ at the merits of the pending dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted.”1 Id. The

12

Court must decide “whether it is more just to speed the parties along in discovery and other

13

proceedings while a dispositive motion is pending, or whether it is more just to delay or limit

14

discovery and other proceedings to accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case.” Id.

15

Here, the Court has reviewed the pending motion to dismiss and the pending motion for

16

summary judgment and finds both address preliminary questions of law. The motion to dismiss is

17

based on the Younger abstention doctrine, and the motion for summary judgment relies on a federal

18

preemption based argument. See Docket Nos. 5 and 17, respectively. These are questions of law and

19

do not require additional discovery. Finally, the Court has taken a preliminary peek at the merits of

20

the pending motions and finds that it is more just to delay discovery to accomplish the inexpensive

21

determination of the case than to speed the parties along in discovery while the dispositive motions

22

are pending.

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

As the Court in Ministerio Roca Solida stated, “taking a ‘preliminary peek’ and evaluating a
pending dispositive motion puts a magistrate judge in an awkward position. The district judge will
decide the dispositive motion and may have a different view of the merits of the underlying motion.
Thus, this court's ‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the underlying motion is not intended to prejudge
its outcome. Rather, this court's role is to evaluate the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery
with the goal of accomplishing the objectives of Rule 1.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 directs that
the Rules shall “be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination
of every action.”
2

1

Accordingly, discovery in this matter is hereby STAYED pending decisions on Plaintiff’s

2

motion for summary judgment and Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties are ORDERED to

3

provide the undersigned with a revised discovery plan within 14 days of any order denying the

4

motion to dismiss and/or denying the motion for summary judgment.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: November 14, 2013

7
8

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3